Materialism has been dead for nearly 100 years. Those specializing in quantum physics knew from the beginning what the evidence was pointing to. Even so the Neo-Darwinist academia has continued to worship the lie they have so much invested in, mostly due to what they claim is the lack of conclusive evidence that it is false. Religion is a funny thing.

That has changed. A recent repeatable science experiment has now demonstrated conclusively that reductionism (the belief that the universe is made up of tiny particles of matter that are the building blocks of a physical universe) is simply false. Particles don't exist, therefore something else forms the basis of what appears as matter.

This further points to the realization that the brain cannot be the origin of consciousness.

Here is a recent video from Tom Campbell, physicist and greater-consciousness-system traveler, that details the experiment itself, and through relatable metaphors outlines the ramifications it brings to the world-view of anyone willing to consider it honestly. It's nearly 2 hours long, but the first hour makes the case quite well. Well worth the time investment to anyone weary of being besieged by the endless materialist dogma.

Thanks WW, enjoyed watching that a few days ago, and had something of a deepening realisation: that whatever the mind is into, 'that' is what 'manifests'.

As a minor example. A while ago I was investigating for as new roof on my house (ie this was 'on my mind', sometimes not consciously so) and found that wherever I went around town I was noticing all these roofs and aspects of them that I had not been aware of before.

A more major example: if what is 'on my mind' is that I am someone in an environment (eg, the world), that will be the experience.

IOW, referring to my rudamentary understanding of the experiment on the video: when the 50% mirror is inserted (ie the question is asked or a mental referrant is inserted in consciousness), then that results in related experience (the scattering).

Thanks for your comments tod. It's hard for me to extrapolate in any understandable way how things manifest in the world as indicated from the experiment described in the video. I can relate to it much better from the LoA perspective. What matters to me is that the experiment is raw science that demonstrates the fallacy of materialistic thinking that the world and the universe is somehow understandable through reductionist theory.

Of course Tom Campbell explains it quite well in the video, and through logical process shows how consciousness cannot be created by the brain no more than a computer can create its user. This refutes a central tenant of materialist thinking.

I remember watching one of his talks a few years back and thought his theories were really quite worthy of consideration. I'd forgotten about that though, and am grateful you reminded me to revisit this.

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing, Love is knowing I am everything, and between the two my life moves.” ― Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

What confuses me (and what has confused me with the Double Slit Experiment for quite some time) is what is considered a conscious observer. Ok, consciousness is consciousness, but....

When I started researching NDE's, it became clear to me that consciousness was experiencing through/as everything including rocks, blades of grass, even the hairs on people's head....just with different experiences of that same consciousness. So yes consciousness is consciousness, but seems like we only consider something "observed" when it's through human sensory. It's almost like....OUR experience of consciousness appears as it does due to the human senses. Yet, the experience of a particle or a bacterium is so far different and therefore, does the consciousness of a bacterium collapse the wave function also? What about the consciousness of a tree? The way I see is that the particles themselves are self aware, not in and of themselves, by through that same consciousness that enlivens the human experiences.

Although we arbitrarily assign consciousness to only a few things in our current definition of what is real in this physical universe, it becomes clear in the expanded consciousness perspective that all form has consciousness. And all of consciousness cooperates to co-create and maintain what we think of as our physical world reality.”-Natalie Sudman

I wonder how Tom would reply to this quote. I would love to ask for his opinion on this if I could.

Found this video from Mellen Thomas Benedict and I think it really explains exactly what I was saying in the previous post.

I think often even non-duality teachings in the way it's been interpreted today has mis-understood what "Consciousness is All" really means, when the ancients who wrote the Upanishads and the Gita truly DID understand it as the statement "Brahman is all", which has been misinterpreted I feel, into believing that our limited human perspective is all there is.

I think Tom Campbell is on the right path here as many of those consciousness scientists are, but I think reality itself is much bigger than even just consciousness that any of us could understand and really, only those who have had the expanded view of consciousness from near death experiences of the like, have this knowing (we've heard Jen talk about it plenty on this board) that everything in existence has awareness, or I should say, Awareness is experiencing through/as everything in existence at just varying levels.

E2B said everything in existence has awareness, or I should say, Awareness is experiencing through/as everything in existence at just varying levels.

Yum

It may have been a mix around of words, but 'at just varying levels' tickles

'just' being 'right' - perfect, balanced.

Take it back to the Hafiz quote - I am the hole in the flute, through which the Christ breath flows, listen to the music.

It's simultaneous awareness of being the hole and being the 'Christ breath' (without connotations, Creation energy), but with awareness of the 'holiness' life giving capacity of it flowing through all things at every possible and 'just' level. Mix in gratitude & generosity at just varying levels of its passing through depending on the awareness, capacity and if aware - willingness of the being of the 'hole', the opening, the opportunity in progress through which life - creation energy flows.

by a) being aware of our integral part, without solidifying into it, (I am - every thing is - the hole in the flute)
and b) 'listening' to the music - being aware, open to and touched by the manifestations of the creation energy

... we can dance with everything as everything dances with and within us.

Not to deflect more from the OP, and this is the last thing I'll post on this, but I found the rest of the context of that Natalie Sudman quote in my earlier post and really wanted to share it because it's really fascinating to me.

Interviewer: Your discussion of the consciousness of everything within the physical world made me wonder how a lamp, for example, holds consciousness. Are there entities who use their focus to be lamps and bookcases and the other apparently inanimate objects in our lives?

Natalie: This could get esoteric and difficult to explain. I’ll see how far I get with it …

First, it’s critical that a re-interpretation of consciousness is understood. The lamp is not conscious in the same sense that you and I are conscious. That’s not to say that its consciousness is less valuable, only that it is so different as to look to us like something other than consciousness. That’s a function of our (mis)understanding of what (our) consciousness is.

We perceive ourselves as individuals, yet from another perspective we are not only individuals, we are also groups – just as we are individuals yet we are a group of Americans, a group of women, a group of artists, a group of humans. We are individuals and we are groups of souls or spirits in a sense. We have or are group consciousnesses, whether we’re aware of it or not. Think of the individual being a point on a cable, many strands running through the individual point. That point exists as a point separate from every other point on the cable, and it is intrinsic to the cable.

Entities are simply consciousness. Are there entities who use their focus to be lamps or bookcases? In a sense, yes, just as there are entities who use their focus to be a fingernail or a strand of your hair. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they use their focus to be part of what we perceive as a whole object, and in doing so they create a community, and that community has a collective consciousness that appears as one personality: a chair.

On another level, you are the creator of that consciousness that is the lamp. You have dreamed it into the world and it has become, and in becoming, it necessarily becomes conscious because it is organized thought, organized energy – consciousness.

Can you talk to a chair or a lamp or a bookcase the way you talk to a dog? Yes. Will it respond? Yes. Will it respond in a way that you can comprehend? That’s up to you – how will you listen to it? What senses are you willing to train in yourself, or explore or enhance or discover or remember in yourself in order to experience that chair’s consciousness?

Can you talk to a chair or a lamp or a bookcase the way you talk to a dog? Yes. Will it respond? Yes. Will it respond in a way that you can comprehend? That’s up to you – how will you listen to it? What senses are you willing to train in yourself, or explore or enhance or discover or remember in yourself in order to experience that chair’s consciousness?

Awww... that is so cute!

So yum.

What senses are you willing to train in yourself, or explore or enhance or discover or remember in yourself in order to experience that chair’s consciousness?

and so wise.

In a segment of the doco - I bought a rainforest - the man who initially was judging the people of the Amazon for cutting down magnificent trees of vast age and home to entire eco systems of other life forms, kind of went through a 'submission' of sorts, a reconciliation of the factors playing into the actions.

When all he could do, and all they could do, could not save the tree in its current form, he wondered if anyone who bought a table or chair made from this living creature would ever recognise its 'consciousness' its magnificent part and past and place in the world. He stumbled on explaining it, even though he knew what he meant. I knew what he meant, and I wanted to tell him - I would. I think Natalie might too.

Very nice Jen....beyond my comprehension from this limited vessel, but I can see that there's clearly more to the "observed/observer" than we think just from listening to people like natalie sudman, Mellon Thomas and Nanci danison (who has acknowledged that we...as source.....put our consciousness into inanimate objects like rocks as well).

Tom Campbell said in one of the comments of the video, when asked by a commenter if "moss" is conscious (moss like grassy stuff) and he responded no. I think the focal point though of why this experiment is cool is that it shows that matter is ultimately empty and that energy truly is the focal point of everything and that what we perceive as solid is ultimately.....not so solid.....and consciousness clearly is primary, but not just because a human observer is required. I still don't understand where they see that...I think the particles themselves are conscious, which is so hard to explain. I've read this in other science reports as well. It shows that consciousness itself is ultimately at every level of being from particles to larger systems like body systems, humans, planets, galaxies, etc

Yet the way I see it is that consciousness just is. This is consciousness right here and right now. Consciousness is one seamless whole as Rupert Spira says. There is not my consciousness nor your consciousness. It's just.....consciousness. Yet as Tom Campbell says....there are agreed upon "rules" so to speak, yet what I call consensus reality in that we agreed upon things by our consensus belief systems...which I'm still grappling with, but have heard many NDE's, Bashar, Robert Monroe and William Buhlman and others discuss this as well.

Yet, within that consciousness, is the experience or the opportunity for experience of any and every (what we think are only objects) perspective of that consciousness. We break things down into Subject and object, such that subjects are conscious, but objects are not conscious and that's one area where we limit ourselves, not realizing that in all likelihood, it seems to be that there is not EVEN a true object, because everything IS the Subject in its own right. There IS only subjectivity in regards to experience, whether that's the human perspective or the perspective of a hair on this arm or the perspective of a basketball or the perspective of a tree or the bark of a tree..... It's all consciousness....the same consciousness from varying points of view. So, just because this body/mind can't grasp at the moon right now from where it is positioned, nor can it grasp at the eco system of life going on in the gut of this body, does not in any way mean that the moon itself or the intestinal life forms are not also experiencing nor does it mean that they are separate consciousness.....just the same consciousness from varying/differing points of view/perspectives.

It's the same energetic flow of life.....co-creating everything together.

Enlightened2B wrote: I think the focal point though of why this experiment is cool is that it shows that matter is ultimately empty and that energy truly is the focal point of everything and that what we perceive as solid is ultimately.....not so solid.....and consciousness clearly is primary, but not just because a human observer is required. I still don't understand where they see that...I think the particles themselves are conscious, which is so hard to explain. I've read this in other science reports as well. It shows that consciousness itself is ultimately at every level of being from particles to larger systems like body systems, humans, planets, galaxies, etc

If the particle can be conscious, then why not the wave? If either is conscious, then is not the energy that is their essence not likely conscious as well? But then maybe we are creating a separation where none exists. I suggest that it is the experience of particles or waves or energy that endows them with consciousness. Could it be that experience is the essence of consciousness. In other words, expressions of any kind exist because of One's experience of them, and if there was not experience (consciousness) at some level, they would only exists as potential. As consciousness considers possibilities, those possibilities become real as experience. Fun to think about.

Awareness is not obectifiable, is not an obect. Objects (names and forms) are created from awareness, depend upon awareness for their apparent existence (appear and disappear within awareness), but awareness itself is not the objects created. It's limitless, depends upon nothing, whereas objects are limited. Everything is nondual because the objects (including mind-body) are created from awareness, but are not conscious. Awareness shines upon the sentient objects and enlivens them. The conscious property within, is awareness shining through the sentient form. Without this process, the sentient form is what we refer to as a "dead" body or form (pure awareness no longer associating itself with the sentient form).

Webwanderer wrote:
If the particle can be conscious, then why not the wave? If either is conscious, then is not the energy that is their essence not likely conscious as well? But then maybe we are creating a separation where none exists. I suggest that it is the experience of particles or waves or energy that endows them with consciousness. Could it be that experience is the essence of consciousness. In other words, expressions of any kind exist because of One's experience of them, and if there was not experience (consciousness) at some level, they would only exists as potential. As consciousness considers possibilities, those possibilities become real as experience. Fun to think about.WW

I think it entirely depends what we mean by "One's experience". Is it just a human experience? Or anything in existence's experience? The latter I would very much agree with. Again, I don't think a human observer (if we are calling that One's experience) is necessary to bring anything into existence. The part in bold resonates with me in that....somehow (and this is far over my head) I would consider that consciousness is merely an aspect of Source itself, which is pure energy. It's where the definition of consciousness comes in, in how we define it. I would absolutely suggest that everything including particles have an "intelligence" at their core as perhaps this intelligence IS the essence of Source/awareness and whether Source chooses to endow something with its own consciousness (incarnating to experience) is entirely a matter of choice and perspective. You and I have both heard Nanci Danison say that incarnations can happen with anything including rocks. And just looking at what she says, Natalie Sudman, Smiley Jen, Mellon Thomas and others who have had the expanded view also say, they seem to understand that there is awareness already at every level of being.

Therefore, experience is ultimately the essence of exploration/incarnation. Yet, I think what I'm getting at and what is often an incredibly limiting perspective by some people, is that just because our human experience of an object does not exist (such as turning our backs on a tree) does not in any way mean that the tree is not already there. It's a mis-understanding, of what consciousness is in that the tree itself, does not have to explain its very own existence to a human who thinks that its own experience of consciousness is all there is, while a tree's experience or even a rock is far beyond our own comprehension. Smiley Jen might have a lot more to say on this from her own experience. But, I think consciousness is a lot more complex than we understand and people merely try to simplify it by taking their own limited human experience and claiming it as the "be all end all" or "CEO of the universe" as Jen likes to say. That's where the expanded view of consciousness really helps during NDE's and such to see that human perception is just one experience of this same one consciousness.

But, even Campbell tries to account for this blind spot fallacy that many fall into the trap of in the idealistic/solipsistic philosophy area by claiming that there are "rules" of the virtual reality game and once something is established as existing, it already exists. But, when I questioned Nanci Danison on how there could be soullless humans, since souls, are the vehicle of consciousness for each incarnation, ultimately, what she is saying is that the universe is already manifested and we are just aspects of Source's consciousness experiencing it. So, this too would go with the notion that our human experience (our experience of consciousness) is not needed to bring anything into existence....as it is just one avenue of potential.....So, it's like a dollhouse that is manifested, and we....as the creator of the dollhouse are just shrinking ourselves into the game of the dollhouse into aspects of ourselves, but the dollhouse already exists because it already exists within our own imagination energy field (as the creator). Very hard for me to try to explain.

But, the problem with Campbell's view although I feel it's clearly on the right path is that....you get to a crossroads of having to define what is considered a conscious observer and what is not.

And in regards to there being pure potential.....I've heard some stuff on this from Bentihno Massaro and also from Bashar. From listening more and more to Massaro's teachings, there's a feeling of "fraudulent"/off with him that comes up with him in my body. I don't know why. But, that aside, it's interesting what he says here (granted these aren't his ideas).

What seems to resonate is that there are parallel realities happening from every single moment to moment to moment. Any kind of shifting from one reality to another is essentially making something "happen" so to speak moment to moment. Bashar explains this well as well.

So, all potential would exist across the multi verse through parallel realities. So, just because we make one choice now, does not mean that another choice (potential) does not already exist. I think this is more in line with the multi-world kind of theory and even with multi-lives, but I don't do the science stuff as it's too over my head and way too conceptual. But, in somewhat relation to what we're talking about, I think it correlates in that reality is multi-dimensional and far more complicated than we understand there is not just absolute and relative. There is infinite choices stemming all around us at every single perceived moment (in reality it's all simultaneous). So, what we think of as a "moment in time" is essentially a whole different reality than "another moment in time" again since.....reality is truly non-linear.

Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here, because I really don't understand this, but it's just another explanation and I think there's more to understand with this quantum stuff anyway. I really like Stuart Hameroff's Quantum view of consciousness as well.